I got bad news folks: The Progressive Morale Officer of the Men’s Rights Movement just committed suicide. But we don’t really have time to mourn, because we need to sit down and have a little chat. I write this to explain a wake-up call I’ve had recently, to give an uncomfortable Red Pill reality check to the MRM in regards to what we say we’re doing versus what we are doing. It appears that feminists aren’t the only ones who choose to not see things that are right in front of their face. I think it’s time we had a little bit of self-reflection.

For the last 6 years or so since being Red Pilled I guess I’ve been in a sort of Cognitive Dissonance, like I imagine a number of us are, where on one hand “Men And Women Are Different”, while on the other hand “We Want ‘Real’ Equality”… and I guess in hindsight I’ve been more on the equality side than most, specifically for equal treatment (not outcome.) Whether the MRAs who finally indirectly convinced me how this really works, themselves consciously already realize what I’m about to say or not, is irrelevant… Actions speak louder than words. And since I’ve finally bought it, now I feel the need to not only make everyone consciously aware of what they are doing, but to advocate for the logical conclusion of it.

About a month ago, myself, Natty Kadifa, Steve Moxon and Karen Mac Fly were all on the Q and A discussion panel for The Red Pill screening in Manchester, being one of the last to screen in the UK. I think we all did a good job, and it was a great discussion, with the exception of the first 20 minutes which was little but an argument with feminists who turned up.

At 48:09 one audience member said:

“If you replace the word ‘feminist’ with ‘women’ you’ve got a more accurate description of what’s going on, because all women are basically like that. I also think the Men’s Movement has been co-opted by women and feminists, and the men seem to be silenced”, “I don’t care who speaks, women will only stand up for the points they believe in themselves”

Now I much like everyone else thought that was a very unfair and incorrect thing to say, which it is. I mean, feminists (or at least the ones leading that movement and always have) not only don’t give a shit about men and boys, but they completely despise them. Most women don’t despise men, and the majority of MRA women do consciously care about men and boy’s issues as a group, not qualifiers like; disabled men and boy’s issues, or our men and boy’s issues, or the useful/productive men and boy’s issues, no, the issues of men and boys full stop.

But the interesting thing for me was the response to this comment days later. There was some talk how that was unfair, how a complete take over was unrealistic, but also how we should guard against gynocentrism from creeping in through the back door, and the difference between male and female social power in groups.
But there was one side to this that was either down played into non-existence, or simply not even talked about at all… non/anti-feminist, gynocentrists. For some reason, something I’ve learned for a very long time now, legitimate open criticism of these people in this movement is treated as somewhat sacrilegious, where any criticism at all must be either ignored or excused as just some misunderstanding.

It appears that although most men and women alike in the MRM do consciously care about men and boy’s issues as a group, our subconscious/instinctive responses seem to be less under our control, creating inconsistency. As a result, we talk about guarding against gynocentrism, but most of the time we can’t even see it unless it’s coming from a feminist angle.

A good example of the type of non/anti-feminist gynocentrist I am referring to would be Kathy Gyngell, the co-editor of The Conservative Woman. At ICMI16 she was actually one of the speakers, though it’s the one speech you won’t be able to find online for it was never released… I don’t know why, but I can guess.
Her speech, that she gave at a men’s issues conference, was really nothing more than:

“feminism is harming women, men aren’t real men anymore, and “women civilize men”

(She actually said that.)

Gyngell wasn’t the first nor the last to make that claim. Another famous example of that was by Christina Hoff Sommers, who calls herself a feminist, but in reality, she’s just a 2nd wave feminist turned Conservative who calls herself a feminist just to piss off feminists. In an interview with Emily Esfahani Smith, for the atlantic she had this to say:

“Masculinity with morality and civility is a very powerful force for good. But masculinity without these virtues is dangerous—even lethal.” – “Chivalry is grounded in a fundamental reality that defines the relationship between the sexes,” – “and given that most men are physically stronger than most women, men can overpower women at any time to get what they want.” – “If women give up on chivalry, it will be gone,” – “If boys can get away with being boorish, they will, happily. Women will pay the price.”

That’s a very long way of saying it, but considering masculinity by definition is “Qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men,” then that’s basically saying men’s default position is immoral and uncivilized.

Now the excuse has been that they’re not really saying that men are subhuman brutes with all their innate “Toxic Masculinity,” but that what they really mean is that women are the motivators of men, who channel their creativity and competitiveness into more useful and constructive pursuits.
Well, that is a very charitable interpretation.
It is true, these women didn’t really mean to say that, they don’t view their men as innately toxic, and women are indeed the motivators of man. However, this cannot be said enough… that is all a half-truth.

Women motivate men to achieve great things that society depends on. They motivate men to become the great minds, who create and discover things that make our lives easier.

They motivate men to become great leaders, to take the responsibility and risks to do what must be done to keep the gears of society turning.

They motivate men to become great providers, risking their lives, paving motorways, deep sea fishing or going down mines, and then to come home and share the fruits of their labour with the wife.

They motivate men to become great protectors, whether to go downstairs by themselves when there is a bump in the night, or to go down with the ship while pushing the wife on the life boat.

And they motivate men to become great warriors, to leave and commit horrible atrocities to keep their women and children safe, and to only return alive if they did their job heroically and successfully, and if they have the wife to come back to.

Women motivate men with all of these things and more, because said things make “real men,” and if you aren’t a “real man,” then what are you? Evolutionarily, a dead end, that’s what.

There’s the old saying:

“Behind every great man there is a great woman”

Well, that’s more true than you might think, because the men of tomorrow are created by the women of today and tomorrow, and the men of today were created by the women of yesterday and today, civilizing them with their subjective sense of morality strait from the crib.

And with every day that passes, men’s minor ability to influence the morality of their sons and daughters, is just getting less and less.

Power by proxy, that is where women’s power has always been invested to great success, for women are the limiting factor in reproduction. And that power has only consolidated overtime, from the birth of agriculture to the industrial revolution. As one said during the Q and A, these male hierarchies of power and control exist because women select them, and women select them because choosing the best provider and protector will give her the greatest reproductive success.

People like Sommers and Gyngell know that very well. They made a Freudian slip, just not one that has anything to do with misandry.

That wasn’t an argument for how women help men. That was an argument against feminism, telling women how for the last 50+ years they’ve been sold snake oil, and that maybe just maybe chopping the hand off that feeds you isn’t necessarily the wisest of ideas.

That’s why Sommers is very keen on addressing the education of boys, while at the same time repeating the lies that women are the majority of the homeless, and that women are basically chattel in 3nd world countries. She wants more education of boys for the same reason said people in the 3nd world do, because of a little thing called The Real World. Girls education is a luxury, while the education of boys is a necessity that keeps the gears of civilization turning. Women, with a very exceptional minority, have no interest in turning the gears of society themselves, and the failed experiment called Sweden, aka the Mecca of Feminism, is conclusive proof of that.

What are we Doing?

The reason why I’ve always disliked these people is for the sole reason they support the type of gender roles behind our core issues, such as the empathy gap, male disposability or the sex object/success object dichotomy. So that begs the question, why do we in the MRM mostly defend or ignore these people?

When you honestly ask yourself that question, the truth becomes a lot clearer… things like the empathy gap and male disposability are not men’s rights issues, they are merely counterpoints to the dogmatic nonsense that is feminist/patriarchy theory. Consider for a moment, what are we actually doing to close the empathy gap?

Most of us talk about these issues like male disposability, and how it is a constant across cultures that men’s safety and well-being are treated as second to women of the same pod, and that men and boys are suffering and need help. That’s what we’re saying, but what are we doing? With our actions, most of what we’re doing is saving the men of some potential use (whether to this movement or society), and worshiping the women who demand it. For all our talk against “positive discrimination,” we’re using it, taking the minority of women in this movement and putting their voices to the front, because people will listen to them, and we are no exception to that rule.

The core of the empathy gap is when it comes to safety and welling, we listen to women, we don’t listen to men. We’re trying to get a group of women (and only those women) a few decades ago a medal for snapping their fingers at the government to jump for the men of their community who were needlessly dying to do their job, and the government practically jumped that same afternoon. Is that really going to close the empathy gap in even the smallest amount, if we’re supporting the notion of empathizing with women’s voices before we can empathize with men’s, considering the trade unions were talking about this for years and neither the government nor us MRAs really cared?

But when that’s pointed out, we get angry and offended, yet we can’t even explain why… much like when we first took the red pill, not being able to refute the logic but not wanting to believe it. Why do we do it?Men and Women are Different

In the Q and A I said I was hopeful in closing that gap by just a little… I am no longer hopeful.

I’m reminded of something a fellow MRA said to me last year when I was a bit too harsh on a fairly ignorant female MRA who was more heart then head, before she blocked me and I got kicked from the group:

“I was thinking a lot today. And what if, and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility, women really were, on average different to men? Were more susceptible to ‘hurt’ or ‘offense’ from words? Did they need ‘special treatment’ and reassurance, and protection? I’ve grown up in an age where that is a taboo thought. If that were true, however, then we ignore it at our peril, and it would also follow that we shouldn’t expect to see so many women, as men, suited to high office, in the Commons, as Corporate bigshots etc. It can’t be both can it, that leads to a schizophrenic society.”

If women are so different to men, then logically men are equally so different to women.

The general consensus I’ve found in these groups is that most believe there is a small biological basis, while it’s mostly psychological and can be unlearnt. I would argue biology plays a far larger role than most of us are comfortable with admitting, based on the research of how testosterone has a structural effect on the development of a foetus’s brain, at a mere 5 weeks. Biologically masculinized and femininized brains are not theory, they’re fact, we just don’t fully understand yet to exactly what extent.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say all of this is completely psychological… why? Why do we have these instinctive psychological behaviours that we do completely subconsciously? To me equality should mean if a woman slaps a man, no one including myself should bat an eye when he slaps the bitch back… but when we see it with our own eyes, we do bat an eye, don’t we?

I don’t read comics, so why the fuck did I buy Alison Tieman’s after she bawled her eyes out in front of her camera after she and her comic got blacklisted in pretty much all of Canada from #CalgaryExpo gate? It was a subconscious feeling right in the gut, of here is a crying victimized woman, I must help her. If that was a man, I would have no such subconscious gut feeling, but a conscious thought that wouldn’t extend to taking out my wallet.

We do all of these things, because we are slaves to natural selection. These gender roles exist and will continue to exist, whether by evolutionary biology or psychology is irrelevant, it’s natural selection. Those who fit their environment will successfully reproduce more than those who don’t. We’re not going to defeat these Gender Roles, anymore than we’re going to stop the rotation of the Earth.

As much as I support MP Philip Davies, he’s killing himself to win a battle of mere semantic lip service in Government. But one worthwhile thing he did do is point out the organizations against “the pay gap” can’t even eliminate it in their own house.

Likewise, how are we supposed to close the empathy gap if we can’t even do it in ours?

Stop Working Against the Rotation of the Earth?

We can’t fight nature, so maybe it’s time we start working with it.

As far as TradCons go, Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch) is the only one I’ve never really had any problem with, in part because of her honest Damn the Torpedoes approach, but mostly because she’s never really come across as a Gynocentrist. There’s only ever really been one time I’ve hostilely disagreed with her, when she defended the draft, and made follow-ups that women shouldn’t vote for in part that reason among others.

Now this was back when I had anger issues, and hence I gave her and Paul Elam a lot of aggressive shit for this for at least a good two months. But a few months later, after having time to think and calm down, I met them at ICMI16 and apologized. I talked to Janet about this subject detail, and I told her something along the lines of;

“I realized you were right, the draft is never going to go away,”

And it’s true, the draft will never go away. That’s why I don’t bother arguing against the Selective Service in the US anymore, or demand it apply to women too, because it would be nothing more than a sentimental victory, like changing the name of “The Women and Equalities Committee” will have about the same effect as renaming “Women’s Studies”, “Gender Studies”. The Selective Service is the illusion of consent, just like NK’s one party “Democracy”. The US was drafting men long before it. Britain has never had a Selective Service, yet it’s drafted in every major war. If a society demands male flesh for the meat grinder, it will get it, one way or another.

And I told her;

“but at the same time, women will never vote away their own vote”

And she replied with five words that I will never forget;

“You have to make them.”

Other than feeling a little motivated, two main thoughts went through my head;
1. “Really? I’m going to make women vote away their own vote? Yeah, right, I’ll get started on that tomorrow”
2. “Even if it was possible, is that even the direction we want to head?”

Well, after realizing just how deep all of this goes, I’m going to take Janet up on her challenge. I am going to successfully make the largest percentage of voters who just also happen to be the most navel gazing, self-entitled demographic in history, to vote away their own vote.

One of the things I’ve thought about a lot, was something the lovely Cassie Jaye said in an interview we gave her in January, who was an absolute pleasure to meet. She said: (2:27)

“So women are out earning college degrees and higher enrollment rates in Universities and men are really falling behind, but we still live in a kind of relationship culture where Hypergamy still exists where women want to marry up in status, and were here are all these women succeeding and they’re saying “where are all the good men”, but it’s because their expectations for men are higher and, you know, guys are falling behind and they don’t realize that if, you know, we help men and boys, you know, everyone will do better.”

That is not an argument for equality, that is an argument for happiness. That logic still applies even if you go past 50% and discriminate against women for men in education. So then that begs the question, what do we want more, miserable “Utopia”, or divided roles that make people happier?

Take Medical School, where there are only so many placements. Ignoring the economic fact that male workers will pretty much always provide a better financial return in any work investment than female ones because of reproductive instincts, hypergamy is a constant. Women are never happy when they marry those they view as being in some way beneath them. Hence, female doctors don’t marry male nurses, they marry male doctors who make even more than them.

So, when you think about it, in the same way for every additional “sex object” a man takes he is depriving another man of one, for every management position or Higher-Education placement a woman takes she is depriving a woman (possibly herself) of a suitable future husband. So what is the result of that?

Well, truth is most women would rather be a happy bit on the side, than an unhappy wife. So in effect, all of this gender equality bullshit is flooding the market with lots of polygamous pussy, who see your husbands wedding ring as a bullseye, not unlike the Flappers of the 1920’s post WW1. Ah, I know what you’re thinking, how do we get around this new polygamous prone society problem that we’ve created, without giving anything up. Well, we could try stoning women to death who commit adultery… that might work.

Or, maybe it’s time we cut our losses and admit gender equality has failed and will never succeed in creating that utopia. It’s never going to happen.

Women’s Suffrage = Happiness?

Without giving up Women’s Suffrage, how do you actually imagine solving that problem among others? Women have an innate bias in looking out for themselves, men have an innate bias in looking out for women (which for men is vastly increased in the presence of women), so the logical result in women having both direct and proxy power is Supremacy, and female supremacy ironically does not benefit women. In fact, I’d argue male supremacy (proxy and direct power) wouldn’t benefit men either, if that was even possible.

Politics, university and religions… what do they all have in common? Once upon a time they were institutions run by the (in the words Norah Vincent) pro-typically-male, stoic, Wise-man. That is no longer the case for politics and university. Now women’s direct presence and votes have made them institutions of gynocentric emotion that caters to everything women want, including the impossible, and in the game of running society that does butters no parsnips.

Masculinity and femininity are differences that should be celebrated, for their differences complement one another and create balance in society. When you mess with that, violence is being committed against the laws of nature, and we all suffer as a result.

Conclusion

Whatever side you’re coming at this from, it’s time to draw a line in the sand and be honest with ourselves. Otherwise, this self-induced schizophrenia will only lead us to destruction. Which direction you wish to turn, is entirely up to you.

Published by

Adam

Adam is a Men's Rights Activist who is here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and he's all out of bubblegum.
After spending a number of years arguing over these issues online, he soon came to the conclusion that if you want to defeat insanity, you must voice insanity.
-"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
(George Orwell)
View all posts by Adam

And yeah, I’m trying to be glib, but there really has been a slew of excellent but disheartening MRA content of late (and I imagine many red-pillers and MGTOWs are looking at this with a “told you so” at the cusp of their lips.)

In any case, I’m really starting to think that the upcoming fracture in the MHRM will along political lines, that is, not “Right wingers and leftists”, but ” non-leftists and leftists”.

What men require isn’t help like a council for men and boys, and I would even argue that they need rights much less than they need less burdens. Less obligations. Room to breathe and strive, instead of merely struggling myopically.

The key is deregulation.

Anyway, great piece.

They Live

Well, they don’t call it the Red Pill because it’s easy to swallow.

All movements fracture and join together, it’s a never ending process. Let’s not forget the bulk of the men’s movement during 2nd wave feminism where feminists who fell for the lip-service, got into bed with their enemy, and proceeded to tell men to open up with their emotions… I mean, she might have taken your kids, the point is we just want you to feel better about yourself and stop being so sad and angry.

Had that movement not split in two at some point in the 80s or 90s, that never would have led to Spearhead (don’t know much about it), and when that fractured that wouldn’t of led to AVFM, and that wouldn’t of led to the HoneyBadgers, etc, etc.
Sometimes a bit of conflict in a movement is important, like breaking eggs for an omelette, or like having a few genetic freaks everyone once in a while is evolutionarily important if your environment changes and your species needs to adapt.

That is what men need, but for a lot of those obligations they’re not going away. We’re never going to take away many of these negative rights of men, so the only logical way to create balance again is to take away the dysfunctional positive rights women unjustly have, and the only way to do that is to argue why it is in women’s interest to throw them away.

Quentin Montagne

Quite. It’s a bit saddening, of course. The MRM had for it that it was intellectually pluralist, but that’s just not sustainable.

http://www.judgybitch.com/ Janet Bloomfield

Women spend, and men defend. Women vote to funnel more and more money into their own pockets (the welfare state) and make capricious choices (mass migration – let’s all be nice!) that men’s blood will eventually have to defend. Sure, men vote like idiots, too.

They’ll die just the same.

Women will not. And if it’s not your blood, you don’t get a say. Men’s body, MEN’S CHOICE.

I will happily join you in your quest to repeal women’s suffrage. We will not survive until it happens.

They Live

Well the good news is I’ve already found at least 3 other female MRAs in my Men’s Rights Community Group that you’re also added to who agree with this, so maybe there is enough to start a dedicated group for this.

To me the goal is to appeal to the brand new Woman Against Feminism group. Get the majority (or largest minority) of that group behind this, and that’s when you’re going to see some real change happen, including the total destruction of Feminist/Patriarchy Theory.

Quentin Montagne

I see the merit of this more and more, even though I’m still uncomfortable with the notion. Still, I just don’t see how to sell this beyond the vaguest outlines of convincing women it benefits them. It seems to me that it requires tearing down the now widely-accepted notion that women can all go Buffy the Vampire Slayer if manure hits the fans, and that’s a considerable task.

I wonder if the solution doesn’t lie in an alternate approach that I heard from Lucian Valsan on one of his videos, that only people who contribute more through taxes than they benefit ought to be able to vote. (Amusingly, I imagine this is what would happen to the fools who live under a universal income system and depend to much on it to be able to say “no” to the inevitable superior caste that would emerge from such.)

Doug Lefelhocz

If I understand correctly, the argument against female suffrage depends on

1. men having more responsibility to the state and

2. society won’t subject women to the same level of responsibility. One might point out countries like Israel or the Soviet Union and Great Britain in the 2nd world war which did subject women to conscription. But, I’ll ignore that for the moment.

Alright, so we assume that men will, in the future, have more responsibility to the state in terms of defense than women will. But, not all elections happen at the level of the state where defense occurs. For example, in the United States we have voting for federal officials, state officials, county officials, and municipal officials. So, the argument against female suffrage only applies to those levels of government necessarily connected to the defense of the nation. Or to those areas of government where men will have more responsibility to society. So, I don’t see how it would apply to municipal or county elections or school board elections.

“in hindsight I’ve been more on the equality side than most, specifically for equal treatment”

Interesting; I have always, from the beginning, been strictly opposed to any kind of equality: outcome, treatment, opportunity, gender, racial, egalitarian, whatever… any and all forms of the “equality” meme are harmful. I have always found myself fairly alone on this stance and frequently faced opposition even from men’s rights friendly people, been accused of alienating “allies” like CHS, or of setting up “ideological purity tests” for staunchly insisting, for example, that people acknowledge how racist and sexist and terrorist the first wave was.

“the majority of MRA women do consciously care about men and boy’s issues as a group, not qualifiers…”

I actually don’t have a problem with people who focus on single issues or subgroups of men and boys. I think that activism and advocacy is not for everyone, and the few people who are motivated are motivated for different reasons and have strengths and interests in different areas. The more people, no matter how small their chosen issue or subgroup focus is, the better, I think.

“how we should guard against gynocentrism from creeping in through the back door”

That is very difficult, even if men’s rights advocacy were a male exclusive thing. It is important to take a hard, uncompromising stance of anti-gynocentrism and continue to change the cultural narrative. Within the movement, gynocentrism will always exist to some degree; and yet, even those who are somewhat gynocentric in the movement can be helpful to men and boys. I say this because of the example of India. Indian MRAs are the best in the world so far, but the main thrust of Indian men’s rights is “Save Indian Family Foundation”, which is a decidedly tradcon, gynocentric group. Yet they are much more successful and effective than western MRAs (as of yet).

This is the way I see it: I don’t have to be in full agreement with them on anti-gynocentrism, yet I can still work with them while continuing to harshly criticize their gynocentrism. They will most likely never be “friendly” with me (for example how CHS, Cathy Young etc. never reached out to any MRAs and they never will), but that’s fine. It is very unlikely that any more than a very small group of humans will ever fully grasp gynocentrism; the core group of MRAs will always be small, not more than a few hundred in the entire world, even 100, 200 years from now. Many people’s temperament and character will not allow them to openly call themselves MRAs or even anti-feminists. The core, uncompromising, anti-gynocentric MRAs will make the movement persevere (and pay the biggest personal price among all advocates as a result), while all these other non/anti-feminist gynocentrists will circle around the core, doing what they can. I predict that men’s rights will always be this kind of decentralized, non-unified movement.

“But there was one side to this that was either down played into non-existence, or simply not even talked about at all… non/anti-feminist, gynocentrists.”

That’s very interesting again, at least to me, because I have talked and commented about non/anti-feminist gynocentrists almost exclusively. I constantly argue with anti feminist conservatives/right wingers on how Islam treats men and boys WAY WORSE than women and girls, or with anti-feminist centrist/leftists/pro-lifers on how racist, sexist, supremacist, misandric and terrorist the first wave was, or how it wasn’t just feminists, but WOMEN in general, even Christian, pro-life, conservative, right wing women, that was the problem, and so on. I seem to be much more interested in the stronger positions that require more depth and nuance and research and historical fact, past the very basic point of awareness of “OMG feminism is bad” or “men have it really bad but Islam treats women like shit”, at which many popular Youtubers seem to be stuck. (I am an ex-muslim by the way.)

I cannot remember the number of times I posted on Youtube or Disqus my long list of links on the suffragettes, and Islam’s treatment of men and boys, or men and boys in India etc. I have very angrily criticized very blue pill women who wrote articles after seeing The Red Pill, claiming they were red pilled, who then went on to also say things like “I know women and girls are genitally mutilated over the world, so feminism is still necessary” and other kinds of bullshit. I denied their experience and called them “purple pill at best.” I got quite a lot of flak for it, such as “you are alienating allies” etc., but I always said that I am willing to be the “bad cop.”

“legitimate open criticism of these people in this movement is treated as somewhat sacrilegious”

That has not been my impression at all (I guess we run in different circles); people like Paul Elam and Peter Wright have been quite clear on their criticism of non/anti-feminist gynocentrists. Paul Elam’s AVFM article “The Truth About Christina Hoff Sommers” came as quite a shock to a lot of people, but I had already known about CHS’s views on chivalry and gallantry long before that from the Atlantic articles and the book “Understanding MGTOW” by Elam and Wright.

“it’s the one speech you won’t be able to find online for it was never released… I don’t know why, but I can guess”

Kathy Gynell’s speech was not released because she REQUESTED that it not be released. Not because MRAs decided not to release it due to her gynocentrism. It was SHE who were afraid of being received negatively and attacked. And hell yeah, I would have attacked her speech vehemently if I could hear it. Conservative women show their true colors in these sentiments, in how averse they are to any kind of disagreement and criticism.

“Women motivate men to achieve great things that society depends on. They motivate men to become the great minds, who create and discover things that make our lives easier.”

This is not entirely true. All the men in the pictures you gave as example “created and discovered” not necessarily due to the motivation they got from women, but because males are overrepresented at the extremes of IQ/obsession/risk-taking spectra. For example Gandhi was celibate for a very long number of years. I don’t have stats to prove it, but I would guess that just like today, the vast majority of men who were “motivated by women” in history to achieve/create/discover are average men who had families, kids and toiled to provide and protect them. They were motivated by the desire to pass down their genes. The extremes of spectra are a very different matter. I don’t think they are motivated by women, generally speaking. They are self-motivated, by abstract reasons.

“…and to only return alive if they did their job heroically and successfully, and if they have the wife to come back to.”

The last part is not true; divorces skyrocketed during and after WW2. Wife or no wife, men were disposable. Men are considered to have a duty and a debt to their country, women are not.

“Women motivate men with all of these things and more, because said things make “real men,” and if you aren’t a “real man,” then what are you? Evolutionarily, a dead end, that’s what.”

Again I disagree with this. Even the men who are not selected by women are required to be “real men” and disposable. These “rejected” men were NOT motivated by women, nor were they selected by women. All the WW2 divorces, or divorces in general prove this.

Either: disposability is purely natural selection and majority of males are required by nature to be disposable for females and OTHER, FEW males to safely reproduce; or disposability has some biological roots but was greatly exacerbated and intensified by culture to the point that even the men who are not selected or motivated by women are disposable “for the sake of the tribe.” The latter makes more sense to me, because many cultures came up with abstract, non-existent “rewards” for disposability that do not involve women at all, such as “martyrdom”, “heroism”, “honor”, etc.

Going even further, there are examples of “honor killings” around the world where un-selected, rejected-by-women men, who have absolutely no motivation from women, have to die to protect some abstract notion of women’s honor and purity, family honor, religious dignity (namus) or some such thing. The man who has to potentially get himself killed to defend the woman’s honor is usually her father or brother, who does not sleep with her (so there is no motivation by women or of passing down genes). This is cultural, not biological. At some point, cultures took over the naturally existing “male disposability motivated by women for the purpose of passing down genes” and turned it into “male disposability for the sake of tribe, even for the rejected males, beyond the reward of women or of passing down genes.”

Cultures FALSELY promise these rejected men the POSSIBILITY of being loved by a woman; but even after this man returns from war successfully, if he still gets rejected by women, the culture does not admonish women for rejecting him, or force the women to mate with them. Again, wartime divorces prove this. There was no cultural outcry “why do women reject these heroes who risked their lives for us” or anything like that; moreover the culture overwhelmingly allowed women to divorce these men. Gynocentrism has natural roots, but it is turned into pure poison by cultural intensification. Cultures are parasites on men, cultures exploit men’s weakness for women and their strong desire to pass down their genes through a woman.

“why do we in the MRM mostly defend or ignore these people?”

Again, that is not my impression at all, but I have always stayed close to the ideas of the few core MRAs who always criticized “these people”. My guess is that the meme of equality as the ultimate moral arbiter has infiltrated culture so thoroughly, that very few people have the character and the temperament to openly oppose it and face the consequences. As Paul Elam said: “men/women will not oppose something that is perceived to help women”, and opposing “these people” such as CHS, or opposing “equality”, signals to others that I oppose something that is supposed to help women, and therefore I am an immoral person.

“For all our talk against “positive discrimination,” we’re using it, taking the minority of women in this movement and putting their voices to the front, because people will listen to them, and we are no exception to that rule.”

I don’t think we are putting women’s voices to the front. Men are simply too afraid to speak, and women are not. Women are largely immune. They get to say what they want. Men, on the other hand, get fired from their jobs etc. There is also a natural component to it; men have a much harder time talking about their own vulnerabilities publicly than women have of talking about men’s vulnerabilities.

“Is that really going to close the empathy gap in even the smallest amount, if we’re supporting the notion of empathizing with women’s voices before we can empathize with men’s, considering the trade unions were talking about this for years and neither the government nor us MRAs really cared?”

Once again, I don’t think we are empathising with women’s voices BEFORE men’s; it simply HAPPENS TO BE THE CASE in today’s environment (where men are routinely fired or jailed) that more women are able to openly talk about it, and women enjoy higher empathy due to their higher neoteny. You are being unnecessarily self critical. I also disagree that MRAs did not care when trade unions were talking about it. Ernest Belfort Bax certainly cared as he was a socialist and hence aligned with unions. In fact his thesis was that it wasn’t some patriarchy, but the capitalist system that caused men’s issues (I don’t entirely agree or disagree). NCFM has been caring about it since 1977 at least. Warren Farrell cared about it since 1973’s “The Liberated Man.” The issue, even with the trade unions, is that some women had to start complaining about working conditions, which were even killing children back in the day, for people, anybody, to care.

“In the Q and A I said I was hopeful in closing that gap by just a little… I am no longer hopeful.”

This is the main problem. That whole debate of “biological determinism” and the fights/splits between MGTOW and MRM, over whether it is possible to close the empathy gap. The fact is, NOBODY KNOWS. MRAs are hopeful, based on the past evidence that humans have learned to keep certain instincts in check, and can do it again; that gynocentrism and the empathy gap are not “determined” but rather is an “adaptive challenge” to which we humans must rise, lest we perish. MGTOW are pessimistic like you. This problem of “hope/faith” is always present in any kind of movement who is fighting for something. We HAVE TO believe in our ability to change and adapt, no matter how “biologically determined” it seems. In a way MGTOW are self contradictory in their pessimism, because MGTOW is proof that gynocentrism is not “determined.” If you look at how feminism changed women, that seems very unnatural too, but they did it.

“The general consensus I’ve found in these groups is that most believe there is a small biological basis, while it’s mostly psychological and can be unlearnt.”

That’s another huge problem in your thinking. Something doesn’t have to be “psychological” for it to be “unlearnable.” Moreover “biological basis” does not imply “cannot be unlearned”. Otherwise THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS ADAPTATION.

“I would argue biology plays a far larger role than most of us are comfortable with admitting”

I am comfortable admitting that biology might even play a 100% role. THIS DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT CANNOT CHANGE! BIOLOGY IS NOT FIXED! OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS ADAPTATION!

“if a woman slaps a man, no one including myself should bat an eye when he slaps the bitch back… but when we see it with our own eyes, we do bat an eye, don’t we?”

How can you be so sure that this is “biological”?

“It was a subconscious feeling right in the gut, of here is a crying victimized woman, I must help her. If that was a man, I would have no such subconscious gut feeling, but a conscious thought that wouldn’t extend to taking out my wallet.”

Why? I know many people, including myself, who have “such subconscious gut feeling” when it’s a man. How are you so sure this is all “biological”?

“because we are slaves to natural selection”

Nope, we are not.

“As much as I support MP Philip Davies, he’s killing himself to win a battle of mere semantic lip service in Government.”

No he is not. Humans, no matter what their “subconscious gut feeling” is, can intellectually learn that men are victims and we should care. Even if they don’t care about men “in their guts”, the “semantic” awareness can change legislation and make a huge difference in men’s lives. PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO CARE ABOUT MEN AT THE GUT LEVEL. That is not what closing the empathy gap is about. They only need to “semantically” agree that men suffer.

“Likewise, how are we supposed to close the empathy gap if we can’t even do it in ours?”

MRAs don’t have an empathy gap problem with men as far as I can tell. You are just unnecessarily pessimistic and deterministic about it.

“As far as TradCons go, Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch) is the only one I’ve never really had any problem with, in part because of her honest Damn the Torpedoes approach, but mostly because she’s never really come across as a Gynocentrist.”

Tradcon is gynocentric. Do you not understand this simple point? Tradcon necessitates that men are the breadwinners and the disposable protectors; in exchange men get “respect”, medals, some sandwiches and ironed shirts.

“And it’s true, the draft will never go away.”

Once again, the pessimistic determinism. There are and were a lot of countries that do not/did not have a draft. Many countries have voluntary armies. Nothing is set in stone.

“That’s why I don’t bother arguing against the Selective Service in the US anymore, or demand it apply to women too, because it would be nothing more than a sentimental victory”

It would be FAR MORE than a sentimental victory. It would mean the difference of possibly thousands of men’s lives. It can also greatly affect WHICH MEN fight. Under blanket draft, even weak, unfit men might be forced to fight; whereas under different rules/systems, they may not be. This can lead to fewer male deaths overall. Not only that, but this would go so much further than a sentimental victory as it would give men cultural bargaining power, they may start being respected and valued again, men’s other issues might get attention as a result of this victory, people at large might start acknowledging misandry, more and more men might find the courage to stand up and speak up, and so on. So many things might happen. You are just too goddamn pessimistic without even knowing what will happen.

“If a society demands male flesh for the meat grinder, it will get it, one way or another.”

Not necessarily. History has many counterexamples.

“it’s time to draw a line in the sand and be honest with ourselves.”

OK then, you need to be honest about your unjustified pessimism where you don’t even know what will happen and how so certain you are that things are determined.

Marcos F.A.

People must understand that no movement is like what is told in the history text books where a kind of thinking, be it illuminism, Marxism, or whatever, is a solid moving piece. If you start to look at any of them you will see a lot of disagreements, in fighting, splits, etc. Not even be the big sisterhood, feminism, where they like to advertising themselves as a collective, hive mind, where everyone hugs is the exception. People come from a lot of different backgrounds, have different views, and once a idea is brought up, it may be argued in different circles where it will be assimilated by the dominant thinking and thus, creating a branch of that idea and different solution.

I’m not telling that different MRM groups should just go all by themselves and tell all the others to f**k up, but exactly the opposite. Each one must understand that no two people think alike, and each one must give up some of your own ego in a effort to make some progress. Of course there are some groups that will be naturally irreconcilable (like tradcons and more progressists group), but that’s ok since feminism is pervasive, all those groups have a part to play.

Through the history men learned to put they differences down and forge alliances when they wanted something else, they will learn to do this again as the comprehension they need to something for themselves this time enters their mind. And each MRA will have to help this happens.

And about convincing the most pampered by government/society group to give up they right to vote – now we are talking about utopia.

John Smith

Since the crux of the article is whether or not women should have the vote…

Rather than having universal suffrage, the vote should be tied to people
who pay a voluntary(ish) tax, serve in the militia/military, and make themselves
available to be drafted.

It wouldn’t automatically include or
exclude women, but it would exclude women who would vote to send men to
kill and die from the safety of their own borders. It would also
exclude, to some degree, people who would vote to take other people’s
stuff, and give it to themselves.

Belinda Brown

Adam do you really think there isn’t any point in getting rid of the word “women” from the Women and Equalities Committee? I also think men and women are different for all kind of reasons but I still think the concept of equality is useful as a gauge of fairness and social health. Do people have equal access to education, healthcare,etc – when you see big imbalances you know there is a problem which needs to be addressed. So if it is a vaguely useful concept then it would be worth trying to turn the Women and Equalities Committee into an Equalities Committee? No? As for repealing women’s suffrage – I think there are more ambitious things to achieve – like getting women to realise the error of their ways. Women have not always been totally egocentric beings, society would not have survived if they had. Once upon a time they might too have put their men and children first.

They Live

Hi Belinda.
Oh no, there are points. Mostly, to get attention to these issues, especially if it’s going to highlight “Ladies for Philip Davies”. But in terms of equality, no, practically speaking it will make little if any difference in regards to their actions.
I think the best case scenario of them changing the name to “The Equalities Committee” is that it might be a little less misandrist, Maybe (with a capital M)… but it will still in practice be about gynocentrism, not equality, because equality is a logical impossibility.

What is equality? Being equal.
Well what if two things have multiple differences, to the point that equalizing one difference contradicts equalizing the other?
The only way logically around that is dividing the meaning of equality into two, being two completely opposite meanings of what being equal means:
–
1. Equal Treatment (treating like for like the same way, so differences get equally treated different; meritocracy)
2. Equal Outcome (treating everyone in a way to negate their differences to reach the same outcome so everyone is of 100% equal value in everyway; Egalitarianism).
–
The problem with that is neither of them survive natural selection, and that’s exactly why pretty much no one chooses one or the other (even if they tell themselves they do), but rather pick and choose when they want and call that equality.

I think a better gauge would be what provides prosperity and happiness for as many as possible.
Take education, as I said in the article in regards to Cassie’s point, if men and boys do better in education and work, it doesn’t just help themselves, it also helps women, while the other way round harms everyone.
That is an area where gender discrimination (for men against women) would help people as a whole more than either type of equality would.
And if we’re going to pick and choose equality when we want to, then is that even equality at all?

I agree that is a lot more of an ambitious thing to achieve, but I think it can be done by speaking women’s language.
Evolutionarily speaking women have had to care for their own children and their men, but they’ve Always had to put their own life first, and hence their own interests. Thing is said ego/gynocentric instinct was always kept in check by environmental limiting factors. It was only when life started to get relatively easy (industrialization and beyond) that these limiting factors started to get whittled away.
Once Women’s Suffrage (and Suffrage in general) became possible, id say that’s when Gynocentrism reached Critical Mass.
We cannot stop that nuclear reaction, all we can do it get it to cancel itself out, by successfully arguing why Nuclear Gynocentrism ironically does not benefit women.
That’s the only thing I can think of, otherwise the alternative is to just start accepting that evolution is just going to turn us into Bees, and that’s that.

Tooj

You really having to read Janet a little more critically. But, what you wrote is proof positive that you are irreparably caught up in chivalry; a little more selective, but just the same…

They Live

Not really, just fed up of hearing one thing yet seeing another.

Viki Samoja

The chips will fall into place one way or the other, would female suffrage ever get repealed? Not likely, i don´t think this train has reverse. But evolution is not a static thing, it already changed several times, only downside, a whole lot of people had to die to facilitate it. Not all people are supposed to survive, maybe this is a test, to see if we can still adapt to the new environments as a species. If not, well i guess we won´t be the first species to die out.

Noor

“[Sommers repeats the lies that ]women are basically chattel in 3nd world countries.”

Not sure how accurate this is, because I remember her pointing out the high land ownership rates by women across Africa in one video.
I’m far more annoyed by the sheer number of those who reject Western feminism but completely buy into the narrative that women are oppressed in other places.

“We’re not going to defeat these Gender Roles, anymore than we’re going to stop the rotation of the Earth.”

Technology and advances in modern medicine have helped enormously. I don’t see any inherent reason for the human race to keep going on, but with artificial uteruses you can still continue with the sexes being equally valuable/disposable. (I suppose eggs are still rarer than sperm, but maybe we’ll figure that out too.)

I’m a left-libertarian anarchist, so the whole voting and draft issue is moot. I do wonder if the fastest way to never have a war again would be to draft women.

I’m not too bothered by utopian egalitarianism in the MRM. Even most feminists today admit perfect equality is impossible. I’m far more bothered by friendliness with conservatives who agree with “innocent until proven guilty” except for foreign men, upon which they’ll turn into rabid feminists.

Philip Schuster

Well I guess it’s time for the movement to split again. Maybe I’m too much of a liberal leftist mangina for the likes of you all, because I believe in universal adult suffrage…. you know, what we used to call equal rights and democracy in the old days.

http://www.escapingatheism.com ن Max Kolbe

Very good points all around. I was in Red Pill Movie, featured and even commented on frequently, but never have been interviewed by anyone about the film. This is because I was ousted due to religiouis bigotry and none of the people you mention here want to talk about that publicly. Apparently for many of them, “Men’s Rights” do not extend to religious men and their concerns. Fine, we don’t need them.

When I was managing editor at AVfM our primary focus was to be as intellectually inclusive as possible. That’s changed since I left but it’s fine; Honeybadger Brigade and AVfM accomplished their main mission of forcing the issues into public discussion. All the people in the film are basically a hodgepodge of random folks with no expertise in organizing things and no real resources, who randomly got together over a shared foe to try to make a really loud noise and get people’s attention. Mission accomplished.

Indeed, when you have no money and no resources and everybody hates you, sometimes you even do things you look back on and regret. I’m not saying anybody here committed crimes or anything, but you often look back and say “did I really say that?” “did I really do that?” It’s the nature of what we were doing when your sole focus is to be as loud as possible and to cause as much cognitive dissonance in the public as possible.

People who are good at being irritating, aggravating, yelling, and causing cognitive dissonance are not good leaders long-term. I do not exempt myself from this. NONE of the people in that film are fit to lead a large coalition. ALL have ideological biases that PREVENT them from coalition-building (for example, they almost all have an implacable hostility to religious people, and a tolerance of bigotry toward them, that’s withering to any serious religious man).

I’ve never been interviewed about the film by anyone, interestingly enough, though I was a big part in helping organize things so the fillmmakers could meet people, was in the film, and have helped promote it all along. I’m open to talk about it to anyone who wants to.

Shrek6

“…………..they almost all have an implacable hostility to religious people, and a
tolerance of bigotry toward them, that’s withering to any serious
religious man).”

And it’s going to stay that way. In fact, it is only going to get a whole lot worse for people like you and for people like me. Speak while you can, because soon you will be on a terrorist watch list. That is the future for all those who hold to any form of Christian Faith or values, whether you are right or wrong. Just calling yourself Christian and writing about it, will be enough to have you arrested.